Hoeller v. Coleman
| Decision Date | 12 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. A--848,A--848 |
| Citation | 180 A.2d 333,73 N.J.Super. 502 |
| Parties | Frieda HOELLER and Erwin G. Schoenhaar, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Louis D. COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Edward F. Broderick, Jr., Morristown, for appellant (Edward F. Broderick, Morristown, attorney; Samuel O. Offen, Newark, of counsel).
Joseph E. Connolly, Livingston, for respondents (Connolly, Vreeland & Connolly, Livingston, attorneys).
Before Judges PRICE, SULLIVAN and LEWIS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
SULLIVAN, J.A.D.
Frieda Hoeller was a passenger in a motor vehicle owned and being driven by her nephew, Erwin G. Schoenhaar, when it collided with a motor vehicle being operated by defendant. As a result of the accident, the aunt and nephew filed suit against defendant, Hoeller suing for personal injuries and Schoenhaar for personal injuries and property damage. Defendant denied negligence on his part and charged that the accident was the result of Schoenhaar's sole or contributory negligence. He also counterclaimed for contribution against Schoenhaar under N.J.S. 2A:54A--1 et seq., N.J.S.A., claiming that as to the Hoeller damages, Schoenhaar was at least a joint tortfeasor.
At pretrial it was disclosed that Hoeller had given Schoenhaar a covenant not to sue and had received $90 as consideration therefor. Schoenhaar moved at trial to dismiss the counterclaim because of the aforesaid covenant. The motion was denied but the counterclaim was severed and held pending the outcome of Hoeller's and Schoenhaar's claims against defendant. After trial thereon the jury returned a verdict against defendant on both claims, the verdict being in favor of plaintiff Hoeller for $8,454 and in favor of plaintiff Schoenhaar for $168.20.
Defendant claimed that Hoeller, by settling with Schoenhaar and giving him a covenant not to sue had constituted him a joint tortfeasor, thereby entitling defendant to a 50% Credit on the amount of the Hoeller verdict. The trial court ruled that Schoenhaar was not a joint tortfeasor because the jury, by its verdict, had determined that Schoenhaar was not negligent. The motion for contribution was therefore denied and defendant's counterclaim dismissed. Defendant appeals.
Briefly defendant's legal position on this appeal is that Hoeller, by settling with her nephew and giving him a covenant not to sue, effectively barred defendant from obtaining contribution from the nephew as a joint tortfeasor pursuant to N.J.S. 2A:53A--1 et seq., N.J.S.A. Therefore, argues defendant, Hoeller's actions amounted in law to a recognition of the nephew as a joint tortfeasor and defendant is entitled to a Pro rata (here 50%) credit on the damages awarded Hoeller. Oliver v. Russo, 29 N.J. 418, 149 A.2d 213 (1959), and Smootz v. Ienni, 37 N.J.Super. 529, 117 A.2d 675 (Cty.Ct.1955), are cited in support of this argument.
Those holdings, however, are not as absolute as defendant would make them. They go no further than to hold that, in the situations there presented, a settlement by a plaintiff would be deemed to have been with a joint tortfeasor.
In Oliver plaintiffs were passengers in the Spinella car when it collided with the Russo vehicle. Plaintiffs settled with Spinella, gave him a covenant not to sue, and then sued Russo for their injuries. Russo filed a third-party complaint for contribution against Spinella, who moved for summary judgment on the basis of the covenant not to sue. The motion was granted but the trial court, in awarding damages to plaintiffs and against Russo, directed that the judgment should be marked satisfied to the extent of 50% Thereof. On the argument of the appeal plaintiffs suggested that Spinella may not have actually been a tortfeasor. The Supreme Court however refused to consider this issue because it was not presented to the trial court 'where it might have been dealt with procedurally as well as substantively.' We take this comment as an indication that had it been established at trial that, despite the settlement, Spinella was not actually a tortfeasor, defendant would not have been entitled to a Pro rata reduction of the judgment. See Klotz v. Lee, 36 N.J.Super. 6, 114 A.2d 746 (App.Div.1955).
Our analysis of the foregoing cases leads us to a rationale of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Theobald v. Angelos
...both Anderson and Conaty. It is agreed the trial court and counsel were aware of the then recent case of Hoeller v. Coleman, 73 N.J.Super. 502, 180 A.2d 333 (App.Div.1962), certification later denied in 38 N.J. 362, 184 A.2d 868 (1962). There the Appellate Division held that whether a settl......
-
Tefft v. Tefft
...more than his pro rata share. The first issue, settlement with a party who is not a tortfeasor was discussed in Hoeller v. Coleman, 73 N.J.Super. 502, 180 A.2d 333 (App.Div.1962), certif. den. 38 N.J. 362, 184 A.2d 868 (1962). The court in Theobald II rejected the pro rata reduction, but pe......
-
Shatz v. TEC Technical Adhesives
...the argument that a plaintiff has the burden of proof to show that a settling defendant is not a tortfeasor. Hoeller v. Coleman, 73 N.J.Super. 502, 505, 180 A.2d 333 (App.Div.1962), certif. den. 38 N.J. 362, 184 A.2d 868 (1962); Kuna v. Hollman, 137 N.J.Super. 199, 205, 348 A.2d 550 (L.Div.......
-
Kuna v. Hollman
...the extent that this does not exceed a Pro rata share from any total judgment. Theobald v. Angelos, supra, Hoeller v. Coleman, 73 N.J.Super. 502, 506, 180 A.2d 333 (App.Div.1962). Defendant may raise the fact of the settlement and release between plaintiff and third-party defendant in order......